Scans_Daily

Some of us, who do not quite get this whole morally sanctimonious "no-kill" business as a simple black-or-white matter, think he became an anti-hero.

From:

It almost sounds like you're saying killing versus letting someone live is a gray area, but that the label of the person carrying out the (personally decided sentence) is what's important: anti-hero or villain. When I'd have to think that the person being killed or not being killed doesn't really care. Except about the not being killed.

It's not 'morally sanctimonius' not to kill. It's a standard code of human conduct that's been around for a reason (human frailty and justice and morality) and for a really long time.

From:

What I find sanctimonious is the automatic grouping of anyone who kills for whatever reason as "bad guy". I would not put a soldier and psychopath in the same category, nor would I judge a person who killed to protect innocents and a person who killed innocents the same. There is a difference between killing a man in cold blood and putting down a rabid dog.

Reasons and context matter to me in judging the actual deed. That's where the line between villain and anti-hero lies. Do you kill for your own gain or for the perceived good of other people?

Also, as somebody pointed out, the notion that killing is the ultimate worst you can do to a person is purely subjective. I'm sure there are people who would prefer death to living crippled, catatonic or haunted.

From:

But that's not your job. That's no one person's job to be judge, jury and executioner. There's a reason that's no one person's job (and it's partly to protect the person doing the job) and also, yes. I really don't think many people would argue that there's NOT a difference between killing a person in cold blood and putting down a rabid dog.

Reasons and context should matter. And should not be the burden of one single individual. There's a reason we have a distinction between the three branches of law. It's checks and balances.

And what? Subjective? I don't think it's so easy to find an actual, willing to go through with it significant group of people who'd prefer being dead to being not dead.

From:

And, I'll add, even with checks and balances and far smarter people than Jason, mistakes are made. I'm not going into my thoughts on capital punishment, but Jason certainly shouldn't be put in charge.

It'd be a disservice to the system and a disservice to Jason. This guy needs that burden on him too?

From:

It'd be a disservice to the system and a disservice to Jason. This guy needs that burden on him too?

I don't care about it being a disservice to a system that plain doesn't work. As for Jason, he takes the burden on himself willingly.

From:

And is Jason now the Angel of Death swooping down on crippled or catatonic or 'haunted' people (what does that even mean? And I'd bet those people classified as either of those three enlightened categories might have some thoughts on this subjective classification system) to save them from being crippled or catatonic or haunted?

I hope not. For their sake and for his.

From:

I should have said "traumatized" rather than haunted.

In real ife, I'd agree with you - it's not upto just one individual. But when you have a fantasy world where the criminals are repeat-offender sociopaths that an inept, corrupt judiciary and law enforcement system cannot contain nor punish, I for one long for somebody to take that decision into their own hands and do whatever it takes to stop innocent people from being killed.

Maybe its what each person expects out of fantasy. I for one, enjoy seeing real-life human weaknesses and certain limitations in comic book superheroes that they manage to overcome. But I don't enjoy seeing them perpetually helpless against a judiciary system who lets off psychos with a rap on the wrist and then off to the revolving door of Arkham. That's real life. I want to see the monsters bagged, tagged and taken out permanently, the way you can't in real life.

To have a bunch of people powered beyond all humankind sit around waffling about morality and the hopes for redemption that never, ever materializes while said criminals go out and victimize Joe and Jane Average - it gets old. So, sometimes, occasionally, seeing somebody say "fuck capes, I'm going to take care of this" is refreshing. This is why the morally gray anti-hero types such as Punisher, Wolverine and hell, even The Authority are popular.

From:

If Jason was powered beyond all humankind I think he'd have a greater responsibility to not kill. How would it be good if Superman took it upon himself to kill? Should he?

Separate from not being more than human Jason struggles and ought to struggle with morality, if he still cares. He's just human. And has to live with his choices.

And I'm still not getting how 'crippled' which probably needs to be not used as a label, or 'traumatized' people are better off dead. I'm kind of thinking they might strongly protest.

But I don't enjoy seeing them perpetually helpless against a judiciary system who lets off psychos with a rap on the wrist and then off to the revolving door of Arkham. That's real life. I want to see the monsters bagged, tagged and taken out permanently, the way you can't in real life.

Well, but I think that's part of the comic narrative system. Repeat villains. If there was a new one every time we couldn't already know their issue and weapon of choice or connect with the fear we are supposed to have with them. Do Punisher, Wolverine or the Authority encounter repeat villains? (I've only read one of the three, and I noticed that they did.)

Also, where are you seeing the heroes as helpless against the judiciary system? I... lose faith in a 'hero' crosses the line and offs somebody because it's expedient versus the right thing to do.

And how is it waffling about morality when... I'm trying to think what you mean and all I can come up with is deciding to kill or not. That's not waffling. That's having morality. By making a really basic choice. I'm sorry it gets old, but it's still not a given to kill people in certain comic 'verses. It's harder not to kill them, but these would be 'verses populated by heroes who are okay with doing the harder thing.

From:

And I'm still not getting how 'crippled' which probably needs to be not used as a label, or 'traumatized' people are better off dead. I'm kind of thinking they might strongly protest.

That's not what I mean at all! I'm saying that there are things, which for some people, may be worse than dying.

And how is it waffling about morality when... I'm trying to think what you mean and all I can come up with is deciding to kill or not.

Making a conscious effort not to kill - that's noble. Nearly killing the someone like the Joker who had supposedly killed both your adoptive brothers and crippled the woman you love, and then spending the next three months going "OMG, I am a MURDERER who must BE HATED" - that's just idiotic. Letting somebody kill Blockbuster after he drives you to the very brink and then going "I have FAILED. I am a MURDERER! I deserve nothing more than to marry a psycho, become a mob enforcer and hide myself away from my family and friends" is really freaking idiotic.

And IMHO, NOT killing the Joker, Zsas, Two-Face, Black Mask and the like transcends both nobility and idiocy to the really fucking reprehensible, especially when they fully well know that Arkham wil not cntain them for long. These are rabid monsters who are a threat to humanity. Either BE a vigilante and do what the authorities fail to do and get rid of them, or if you don't want to get your hands dirty, just quit. Just don't try and hide behind the sanctity of life crap, because their lives stopped being sacrosanct when they decided to run around killing innocents.

From:

arilou_skiff.insanejournal.com

"Yes, he deserved to die, and many who died deserve to live, can you give that to them?"

From:

We all do only what we can.

From:

sistermagpie.insanejournal.com

To be fair, Dick's emo over those things was basically shown as, if not idiotic, unnecessary. And I think it was shown to have less to do with morality than with the lessons Dick internalized from Bruce, which Bruce needed because he's a different person, if that makes sense. I think Bruce's personal no-kill makes sense for him as an individual who knows his own weaknesses. Dick has different weaknesses, so to him the lesson became more about Bruce than about his own thoughts about the morality of killing someone like the Joker. He let Bruce down by killing, in Bruce's eyes that makes him no better than the Joker. (Not really true, but in Dick's head imo.) As Bruce said at one point, he forgives him for losing sight of the value of Blockbuster's life, but not for losing sight of the value of his own.

From:

But it's. So. Stupid. *argh*

Maybe it's just that Dick needs to realize that he's not, in fact, freakin' Superman.

From:

unknownscribler.insanejournal.com

Some people need killing, especially whn no other means of stopping them harming innocents works. It's really that simple.

From:

An ever simpler principle is people's right to a fair trial.

From:

unknownscribler.insanejournal.com

Let me reiterate: it's been proven nothing else will prevent that person from killing innocents. You send them to prison and they escape. You put them throuh rehab and they relapse. You put them on trial and they walk through intimidation of witnesses or corruption of the judicial process. Mundane authorities consistantly prove incapable of restraing this individual or protecting others from them.

If you've taken up the spandex, you've already tacitly admitted that the system is broken and you have taken upon yourself the moral and ethical responsibility of cleaning up the mess.

From:

In Batman's case, the role he's taken for himself is most like that of a cop. He catches bad guys, he doesn't judge them. That's the part he takes in cleaning up the mess.

You're saying that because all the other parts of the system don't work, the one that does should be skewed as well. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's a dangerous foundation upon which to base a society.

Now, if killing Joker is a moral duty, then there's not the slightest reason to hold Batman by that standard instead of the rest of the people who have ever been in situation to kill him.

From:

Aand we're back to the fact that it's ridiculous that no one has yet so much as attempted to kil the Joker yet.

It's been established that Batman is about the only one who can actualy catch the Joker and make it out alive. The authorities cannot kill him within the letter of the law after he's been apprehended. Therefore, the only reason who can actually get away with killing the Joker is Batman, making him most responsible for the Joker running around.

One thing I WILL fault him for is that story arc where the Joker almost finally gets sent to the electric chair, albeit ironically for a crime he did not commit. This is not good enough for Bats, so he goes on to actively protect, exonerate and get the Joker released. Because "there can be no short-cuts" and now the Joker "will have to live every day knowing he's in Batman's debt".

I'm sorry, but...WHAT?! He was finally convicted, sentenced and out the door toward the injection and Bats saves him because he wasn't sentenced for one of the crimes in his long and terrorizing career he DID commit?

I think that was the point where I got turned off Bats' M.O. Permanently. Damn right its his fault that a mad serial killer is on the loose.

From:

The authorities cannot kill him within the letter of the law after he's been apprehended. Therefore, the only reason who can actually get away with killing the Joker is Batman, making him most responsible for the Joker running around.

So a murdering vigilante running around Gotham would be better? You can't defend the letter of the law from the moment you start saying Joker should be killed whether he's been condemned or not.

for a crime he did not commit

If Batman let Joker take the fall for it, there would've been a criminal going unpunished and free to commit other crimes.

Damn right its his fault that a mad serial killer is on the loose.

Did I miss the moment where Bruce acquired Arkham Asylum somehow and failed to strengthen their security measure?

From:

The definition of a vigilante is that he IS working outside the law. Therefore he is not bound by due procedure the way law enforcement is. The Bat consistently tries to have it both way and FAILS. He has to endure being reviled as someone who makes a mockery of the law while privately binding himself within the law. You just can't have it both ways. Either you can get your hands dirty or you can't.

I maintain that killing someone like the Joker or Zsas wouldn't be murder, it would be a "putting down".

If Batman let Joker take the fall for it, there would've been a criminal going unpunished and free to commit other crimes.
The Joker was deliberately set up by one of his previous victims in a manner that wouldn't allow him to be shieled by reason of being legally incompetent any more.

Did I miss the moment where Bruce acquired Arkham Asylum somehow and failed to strengthen their security measure?

You missed where the Bats all keep taking insane criminals who are also tlaented escape artists to a place which consistently embodies the failure of the system to contain these criminals in any effective way. If you decide to work above the system because its broken, then you're supposed to go the whole hog and make sure they can't escape either. That Bats only takes on the role of a cop, when he has the resources to do much more than that, feels like a pretty half-assed way of trying to change the system.

I'm currently fleshing out a plot bunny where Tim has become Batman and, tired of seeing the top-tier villains escape and cause havoc time and time again, uses Waynetech to build his own ultra-secure prison for criminals who have been deemed too dangerous for either Arkham or the Slab to contain. He has a secret contract with the governments of the world to contain them. You can't tell me Bruce couldn't have done the same, if he were willing to bend the rules a bit more.

From:

He has to endure being reviled as someone who makes a mockery of the law while privately binding himself within the law. You just can't have it both ways. Either you can get your hands dirty or you can't.

And he's picked his fights and drawn his limits. Batman catches bad guys. That's what he does. He doesn't follow due procedure and that is that as far as things he doesn't obey go. He doesn't judge. He doesn't make the laws. The system that he's criticizing by his existence is the police, not separation of powers as a whole.

I maintain that killing someone like the Joker or Zsas wouldn't be murder, it would be a "putting down".

Maintain all you like, legally it wouldn't mean squat. They're human beings, they get exactly the same rights as other human beings.

If you decide to work above the system because its broken, then you're supposed to go the whole hog and make sure they can't escape either.

Well, no, your 'supposed' doesn't carry a lot of weight since you're not 'supposed' to put yourself above the system either.

You can't tell me Bruce couldn't have done the same, if he were willing to bend the rules a bit more.

I don't doubt that if he wanted to he'd be an excellent fascist leader, and I am very glad that so far he's been able to stop himself from it. Incidentally, the sort of scenario you're describing is also why I am so opposed to Tim as Batman.

From: